Google Meet is pretty nice in my experience. No major complaints

I’m not sure that an 8 hour route between these cities with ~900 km between them really makes our case here. I don’t think there’s really a strong argument to be made that taking the train is better than flying between these cities.

International trains in Europe are a weak point of our network, one which we desperately need to improve.

That no one travels from Germany to France is of course entirely false. Frankfurt to Paris would be a far stronger example, coming in at 3 hours 30 minutes for ~500 km.

Wouldn’t a private plane start taking off as soon as you arrive? Assuming the runway is free.

They are arguing in bad faith - their true motivation is that they want a parking space for themselves right outside the business

This was the method people used to get Balatro running on mobile before. Extract the Lua code and then package it using LÖVE for Android/iOS

Australia expects us to respect them as a nation and then they pull this shit

There are like five engineers still on staff in that place, it’s honestly surprising that they’ve been able to keep the lights on for this long.

Anyway, let the ship sink and move on

Why would you need 24/7 delivery for AI? You can vary the load for training as much as you want, while inference can be throttled to meet energy availability. There’s nothing inherent to AI that warrants that type of power profile.

It’s that simple.

That’s such a massive oversimplification of operating a nuclear power plant that I’m not quite sure there’s any more value to be had in this discussion.

That’s of course a different way we could go, yeah. Renewables are still more fit for purpose in a paradigm where we try to reduce energy consumption levels down to what they’ve been in the past.

You can only optimize usage for so long though, until you start having to downgrade your lifestyle to a significant degree. You’re likely going to find this to be a very hard sell, somewhat reducing the feasibility of the strategy.

AI needs large amounts of cheap power. Nuclear does not deliver on those requirements - vast quantities of renewables would be far more suitable for this purpose. However, renewables are woke and as such Trump would never lean into them, no matter how profitable it would be.

You don’t actually need to get as much power out of them - this is a benefit of a system built upon renewables. There’s far greater resilience as the power generation is spread out over more nodes, leading to less large potential points of failure. Add in distributed localized storage capacity, and you’ve got a far more sophisticated solution than one based on a few large nuclear plants.

Feel free to re-imagine the energy system as a socialist one where you merely replace the concept of a monetary cost with a resource cost. You still want things to use less resources, because then you can have more of it, which ultimately benefits the public that aims to use the energy.

Being able to harness the power of atoms is cool, but directly harnessing the power of a star is arguably far cooler.

A scenario where you get zero production for a week is very unlikely - broadly speaking, you cope with this by building out production to produce a massive surplus, with various industries that can at variable rates use up the massive amounts of cheap power in the base case, then you build up storage to cope with the most likely scenarios of capacity reduction/smoothing out the price curve throughout the day.

It’s also important to note that demand is far from static - people can and will reduce their usage when incentivized to do so, usually in the form of raising prices in low capacity scenarios. It’s already starting to become quite popular to do so today, with spot price electricity plans allowing people to pay ridiculously low rates by aligning their energy usage with capacity availability - things like charging EVs/running laundry/running dishwashers/storing up thermal energy.

Their cost goes up over time while the cost of both renewables and energy storage is plummeting.

No, we have viable energy storage solutions already. We haven’t built them out, but they are already feasible. And the best part about them is that they get more feasible each year, while nuclear becomes less and less feasible each year.

Assuming that you start today, by the time the first nuclear plant comes online, it will be so wildly uncompetitive that only huge amounts of subsidies will be able to keep it running.

Closing down existing nuclear was a mistake, and there’s probably an argument to be made that scaling back on its construction and R&D was also a mistake. But trying to go back to nuclear at this point when renewables and storage are so obviously taking over is a larger mistake.

ffmpeg is wild as far as tools go

Beginning investments nuclear at this point when renewables so obviously to everyone in the know are beating them on all accounts is extremely on brand for someone as dumb as Trump

Spill the beans